On 2026-10-26 18:51, Chris wrote:
On 2026-10-26 08:32, Mark Millard wrote:
On 10/26/26 07:44, Lexi Winter wrote:
Dan Langille wrote in
<[email protected]>:
You are short-cutting the process. First, mark the port broken after
one month of it being actually broken. Did you do that? No. A few
months later, mark it deprecated. Did you do that? No. With those
steps taken, the port will be garbage collected by the usual process.
No need for you to delete it like you did.
it's been broken for five months. who cares? if the answer is
anything
other than "no one", the person who cares can resurrect the port and
maintain it.
(Not that I care about the specific port but I'm curious about the
process:)
Can a potential maintainer that is not a committer reinstate the port on
their own?
If not, it would seem that the thing missing for reinstatement would be
someone requesting the reinstatement that also indicates they want to be
the maintainer.
If it does not already have such, I wonder if the policy should have
some words about that for long-broken ports that are deleted.
There's nothing to stop anyone whom uses the port from claiming
MAINTAINER
and submitting a patch to fix it. They needn't already be a maintainer.
The only problem I see here is that is that the standard procedure wasn't
followed; Mark port broken --> give it a expires/depreciation date. If
nobody steps up, remove it on depreciation date.
@anyone whom wants to keep this port;
grab and reverse the commit patch. Apply it to a fresh ports tree. Add
and or
modify patches as required to fix the port. Add yourself as
MAINTAINER. Generate
a patch. Submit it to Bugzilla. Done.
@daniel
You short-circuited the process. You've been doing this long enough to
know
better.
otherwise, nothing is lost by deleting a broken port.
we should not let arbitrary rules stand in the way of improving the
ports tree, especially considering the state of ports.
--Chris
Read up, you're wrong and a maintainer actually needs to (as the title
implies) maintain. Additionally it doesn't make any sense to add
software that's about one year behind and unsupported upstream so it
needs to be updated too.
Best regards,
Daniel
